a practical guide to scaling personalized learning

District Conditions for Scale: A Practical Guide to Scaling Personalized Learning

Written By:Matt WilliamsJesse MoyerSarah Jenkins

November 2014

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 6

Methodology .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

The District Conditions for Scale ................................................................................................................. 8

Curriculum ................................................................................................................................................ 8

Instruction ................................................................................................................................................. 9

Comprehensive Assessment System ........................................................................................... 9

Learning Environments .....................................................................................................................10

Student Supports .................................................................................................................................11

Professional Development ..............................................................................................................12

Leadership Development .................................................................................................................13

Technology Policy .................................................................................................................................13

Comprehensive Data Systems ......................................................................................................14

Partnerships ...........................................................................................................................................14

Interview Meta Themes .................................................................................................................................16

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................18

Next Steps .............................................................................................................................................................18

Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................................19

Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................................20

About KnowledgeWorks ................................................................................................................................20

About the Authors .............................................................................................................................................20

Appendix: District Conditions for Scale..................................................................................................21

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Over the past few years there have been numerous publications, reports, and briefs released that focus

on the elements of an innovative school from a programmatic and a policy standpoint. These have

helped to shape what practitioners and policymakers expect to see in innovative, student-centered, or

personalized learning environments. Personalized learning, broadly speaking, is stuck in the school pilot phase.

There are countless examples of personalized learning environments, models, and schools from coast to coast.

We have all seen that great school or model and the world of possibilities it offers for the students that attend

the school. But how are the other students in that district being educated? How do we reach a level of scale

for personalized learning? How do we move from the isolated examples to whole systems designed around

providing personalized learning options for all students? How do we build a school system, a learning system,

with personalized learning at the core? One important step in this work is to identify the conditions for scale

that exist at a district level. In other words, what are the conditions that a K-12 school district should put in

place to support the scaling of personalized learning?

Why is scaling educational concepts such as personalized learning so difficult? Our current system is

outmoded, designed for a time that is long since passed. Our system was designed for a time where low

graduation rates, from both secondary and post-secondary, were absorbable into an economy brimming with

and driven by industrial era jobs with union protections and benefits. That is not the economy of today, but

our education system stands as a relic of the industrial age. The structures of our current system push against

innovation, often thwarting it and blocking change beyond incremental tweaks.

What are the conditions that a district leadership team and school board should put in place to scale

personalized learning? We have seen some bright spots across the country from Kentucky to Maine, from

Iowa to Colorado, from New Hampshire to Ohio. The conditions that we put forth and examine are based on

KnowledgeWorks’ secondary research into this area as well as extensive primary research. We conducted

interviews of district superintendents and district leadership teams from across the country who are leading

system level scale around personalized learning. The secondary and primary research provided the basis for our

ten District Conditions for Scale. It is important to note that the district conditions for scale would work to scale

more traditional educational approaches; however, KnowledgeWorks maintains a bias that personalized learning is

and will be the catalytic force for educational change in the United States.

In the paper that follows, we discuss in depth each of the ten district conditions, explore the cross cutting meta

themes, and begin to build the alignment between the district conditions and state policy levers. As this work

evolves, KnowledgeWorks believes that not only does unlocking the role for districts and district leaders hold

the key to scaling personalized learning but also to aligning a supportive, flexible state policy environment will

fully unlock the education system.

District Conditions for Scale: A Practical Guide to Scaling Personalized Learning |


The District Conditions for Scale follow:

1. Curriculum

Curriculum must be aligned to the district’s vision for teaching and learning and should be reviewed

regularly to ensure alignment. The standards and learning targets contained in the curriculum should

be consistent and easily understood for every student, although the ways in which students meet those

standards may differ in order to provide a personalized learning experience for each student. These

multiple pathways to meeting standards should be informed by real-time data on student performance and

engagement, students’ learning styles and interests, and the goals of the student and parents.

2. Instruction

Instructional practices must be aligned with the district’s vision for teaching and learning. Instruction

should be focused on teaching students how to learn, shifting from a teacher-led to student-led model

incorporating differentiated instruction (incorporating direct instruction, mastery learning, blended

and project-based learning, flipped models, etc.). Finally, instruction should be rigorous and relevant to

students’ needs and interests, and progression should be based on mastery, avoiding the “mile-wide, inch-

deep” phenomenon.

3. Comprehensive Assessment System

Each district should implement a comprehensive assessment system that is aligned with the district’s vision

for teaching and learning. Assessments should include formative, interim, and summative assessments.

Instant feedback from ongoing embedded assessments - including, but not limited to portfolios, capstone

projects, performance-based assessments, curriculum-embedded assessments - should be used to

monitor student progress and adjust day-to-day learning activities. Summative assessments should be

offered multiple times a year, when students are ready to take the exam, and students should have multiple

opportunities to show mastery of the assessment.

4. Learning Environments

Districts should cultivate learning environments, both inside and outside the school walls, that support

high expectations for all students while fostering a culture of trust, support, equity, and inclusiveness.

Continuous improvement should be embedded in the culture of the district and driven by student

achievement data and other success indicators. Lastly, real efforts should be made to celebrate district and

school successes.

5. Student Supports

Students should get the supports and interventions they need to be successful when they need them, not

after they’ve taken a summative assessment at the end of the year. These supports should be informed by

instant feedback based on frequent formative assessments and, to the extent possible, be embedded in

learning. Schools should be given the flexibility to use the time in the school day/year as they see fit in order

to provide these supports.


6. Professional Development

Each district should offer a job-embedded professional development program that aligns with the district’s

vision for teaching and learning and to student needs. The professional development program should

foster a culture of collaboration and continuous improvement while leveraging technology that creates a

customized experience for each teacher that is available at any place and time.

7. Leadership Development

A district should have a leadership development program that identifies and trains leaders at the classroom,

school, and district level. This includes involving educators and other staff members in the visioning

process, strategic planning, partnership cultivation, and curriculum review.

8. Technology Policy

Districts must have a technology policy that allows for ubiquitous, safe access to the internet at all times

of the school day. Districts should also address deficiencies in infrastructure in order to support a more

connected student population at scale.

9. Comprehensive Data Systems

Districts should maintain a comprehensive data system consisting of learning management, assessment,

and student information systems. These systems should be able to track student achievement history,

teacher comments, supports and interventions, and other indicators while protecting student-level privacy.

10. Partnerships

Each district should cultivate partnerships with business, community, and higher education constituents

in their communities (including local and county government, recreation, juvenile justice, faith-based,

etc.). These entities should be involved in creating a district vision and strategic plan that is aligned with

a broader economic and workforce development plan for the community. All aspects of teaching and

learning within the district (curriculum, instruction, assessment, professional development, etc.) should be

aligned to this vision. In addition, these partners should assist with creating various learning opportunities

(internships, mentor programs, work-based experiences, service learning, etc.) and publish a list of these

opportunities for all learners.

One might ask, why focus on scaling personalized learning at the district level? The reasons are twofold.

First, in the United States, the district level is the level of implementation. The district level is closest to the

schools and thus the students as well as to the educators. Moreover, the district level has the most control over

system vision, curriculum, and instruction, as well as formative assessment and student supports. Secondly, by

solving for scale at the district level we gain a clearer vision for what supportive, enabling, and catalytic policy

can look like at both the state and federal level. This begins to solve for a better aligned, more supportive

education system that is oriented towards putting the student at the center of the system through a vision and

focus on personalized learning. To move to truly focusing on personalized teaching and learning, it demands a

coordinating move from pilot phase to true scale.


Introduction

Over the past few years there have been numerous publications, reports, and briefs released that focus on

the elements of an innovative school from a programmatic and a policy standpoint. These have helped

to shape what practitioners and policymakers expect to see in student-centered, personalized learning

environments. Personalized learning, broadly speaking, is stuck in the school pilot phase. There are countless,

isolated examples of personalized learning environments, models, and schools from coast to coast. We have all

seen that great school or model and the world of possibilities it offers for the students that attend the school.

But how are the other students in that district being educated? How do we reach a level of scale for personalized

learning? How do we move from the isolated examples to whole systems that provide personalized learning

options for all students? How do we build a school system, a learning system, with personalized learning at the

core? One important step in this work is to identify the conditions for scale that exist at a district level. In other

words, what are the conditions that a district should put in place to support the scaling of personalized learning

throughout a K-12 school district?

For the purposes of this paper, KnowledgeWorks defines personalized learning in the following manner.

Personalized learning requires the following elements:

• Instruction that is aligned to rigorous college-and-career ready standards and the social and emotional

skills students need to be successful in college and career;

• Instruction that is individualized, allowing each student to design learning experiences aligned to his or

her interests;

• Pace of instruction that is varied based on individual student needs, allowing students to accelerate or

take additional time based on their level of mastery;

• Educators’ use of data from formative assessments and student feedback in real time to differentiate

instruction and provide robust supports and interventions so that every student remains on track to

graduation;

• Student and parent access to clear, transferable learning objectives and assessment results so they

understand what is expected for mastery and advancement.

Why is it so difficult to scale educational practices such as personalized learning? Our current system is

outmoded, designed for a time that is long since passed. Our system was designed for a time where low

graduation rates, from both secondary and post-secondary, were absorbable into an economy brimming with

and driven by industrial era jobs with union protections and benefits. That is not the economy of today — our

education system stands as a relic of the industrial age. The structures of our current system push against

innovation often thwarting it and blocking change beyond incremental tweaks. Rick Hess, K-12 and Higher

Education Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, began his 2010 book, The Same Thing Over and Over: How School Reformers get Stuck in Yesterday’s Ideas, in the following way:


How would you respond if asked for a plan to transform America’s schools into a world-class, twenty-first-century system? Now imagine that there is one condition: you must retain the job descriptions, governance arrangements, management practices… and calendar of the existing system. Hopefully, you would flee just as fast as you possibly could and if so, you would be way ahead of the rest of us who have spent decades slogging through the dismal scenario.1

This quote paints a bleak picture of the obstacles that are in the way when it comes to reforming our current

education system.

Even with systemic obstacles, we are seeing districts begin to scale personalized learning. To Hess’ point, there

has been a great deal of both “fleeing” and “slogging” but some districts have begun to put the right pieces in

place to extrapolate best practices, refine them, and scale them across schools within their districts. It is known

that a strong visionary leader is needed to begin and lead change. In the preface of their work, The Leader’s Guide to 21st Century Education: 7 Steps for Schools and Districts, Ken Kay and Valerie Greenhill, state the following, “One

thing that stands out clearly for us is this: No school or district is doing real 21st century education work today

without a strong leader. Individual educators or programs can produce inspirational results, but without the

support of teacher-leaders, principals, and superintendents, the work does not sustain itself.” 2

Beyond leadership, what are the conditions that a district leadership team and school board should put in

place to scale personalized learning? We have seen some bright spots across the country from Kentucky

to Maine, from Iowa to Colorado, from New Hampshire to Ohio. The conditions that we put forth and

examine are based on KnowledgeWorks’ secondary research into this

area as well as extensive primary research. We conducted interviews

of district superintendents and district leadership teams from across

the country that were leading system level change around personalized

learning. The secondary and primary research provided the basis for our

ten District Conditions for Scale. It is important to note that the District

Conditions for Scale are agnostic; however, KnowledgeWorks maintains

a bias that personalized learning, as previously defined, is and will be the

catalytic force for educational change in the United States. As this work

evolves, KnowledgeWorks believes that not only does unlocking the role for districts and district leaders hold

the key to scaling personalized learning but building a supportive, flexible state policy environment will also be

required to fully unlock the education system.

One might ask why focus on scaling personalized learning at the district level? The reasons are twofold. First,

in the United States, the district level is the level of implementation. The district level is closest to the schools

and thus the students as well as to the educators. Moreover, the district level has the most control over system

vision, curriculum and instruction, as well as formative assessment and student supports. Secondly, by solving

for scale at the district level we gain a clearer vision for what supportive, enabling, and catalytic policy can look

like at both the state and federal level. This hopefully begins to solve for a better aligned, more supportive

education system that is oriented towards putting the student at the center of the system through a vision and

focus on personalized learning. A systemic focus on personalized teaching and learning demands a coordinating

move from pilot phase to true scale.

KnowledgeWorks believes that not

only does unlocking the role for

districts and district leaders hold

the key to scaling personalized

learning but building a supportive,

flexible state policy environment

will also be required to fully unlock

the education system.


1. Curriculum

Curriculum must be aligned to the district’s vision for teaching and learning and should be reviewed regularly to ensure alignment. The standards and learning targets contained in the curriculum should be consistent and easily understood for every student, although the ways in which students meet those standards may differ in order to provide a personalized learning experience for each student. These multiple pathways to meeting standards should be informed by real-time data on student performance and engagement, students’ learning styles and interests, and the goals of the student and parents.

It should come as no surprise that curriculum is one

of the ten District Conditions of Scale. The subjects,

course of study, and any aligned supplemental

modules or extra-curricular alignment are all within

the scope of the district’s purview. Curriculum is

the foundational element for any district but even

more so for scaling personalized learning. If we had

to rank the most important condition for a district to

put into place, we would strongly argue for a vibrant,

engaging, student-centered curriculum. Districts that

are actively scaling personalized learning do not rely

on one-size fits all scope and sequence and pacing

guides that plague many schools and classrooms

across the country.

Methodology

In the sections that follow, we discuss in depth each of the ten district conditions, explore the cross cutting

meta themes, and begin to build the alignment between the district conditions and state policy levers. Each

of the district conditions were defined based on lessons KnowledgeWorks has learned from its subsidiaries’

EDWorks and StriveTogether, work in the field from across the country, and secondary education research.

Once the district conditions were defined, KnowledgeWorks interviewed almost 30 district leaders from

across the country in an effort to refine, align, and validate the conditions against what is working in the

field. The interviews created feedback and data which was used to refine each district condition. Moreover,

superintendents’ comments were organized into themes and then meta themes that are cross cutting through

each of the ten conditions. Lastly, we collected best practices associated to each of the conditions to provide

a better illustration for the implementation of the conditions. A summary of this research for each condition,

along with definitional language and examples of best practices, follow.

It goes without saying that in our current educational

climate, the curriculum is fully aligned to a robust

set of college and career ready standards and to

teacher professional development. Moreover,

through the lens of personalized learning there

is a new level of transparency needed within

the curriculum. That transparency demands a

consistency and deep understanding by students

to not only know what they need to know but

also how they can demonstrate that learning. The

reason for this transparency is that the notion of

one size fits all has been dismissed by a district that

is leading personalized learning. As Angela Olsen

superintendent from Spirit Lake, Iowa offered,

“Students need to be able to set personal goals and

work through learning progressions—one size does

not fit all.” With this, educators are able to tap into a

student’s passion and thus foster engagement.

The issue of student engagement was prevalent

throughout conversations with district leaders

about the vital nature of curriculum in driving

personalized learning. One district leader mentioned

that measuring engagement is important, but they

are unsure of how that can be done. Other districts,

such as Spirit Lake, Iowa and Lawrence Township,

Indiana focus on multiple pathways and community

level partnerships. These pathways and partnerships

allow for students to follow areas they are passionate

about, explore new topics or career paths, gain


online learning, and experiential modalities. These

approaches allow for greater differentiation and

personalization with a pronounced focus on mastery

or proficiency. Moreover, these sorts of instructional

strategies allow for students to explore content

through the lens of topics and outcomes that are

engaging to them. Building on that, the exemplary

districts on instruction actively find ways to engage

students in both the planning and the implementation

of lessons and their aligned instruction.

While instruction is a district condition, it is

important to point out that the bulk of autonomy

for instruction falls to the school level. John Quick,

superintendent in Bartholomew County, Indiana,

said, “Implementation is done at the school level,

with the district clearing away barriers to this.”3

Jurisdiction is important in discussions of instruction.

The district should put the conditions in place so

that educators can build lessons that are rigorous

and relevant with instruction that engages all

students. Districts should mandate differentiation

for all students; in other words, put a primacy

on personalization and provide the supports to

educators to make that a reality in the classroom.

Underscoring the importance of jurisdiction,

Theresa Eawald, Superintendent in Kettle Moraine,

Wisconsin, offered the following, “Instruction

would need to be aligned with the district’s vision

for teaching and learning. At the same time, while

the vision is aligned, the details are determined

at the school level, and the district monitors

implementation.”4 Districts should set the vision

and the outcomes they would like to see and allow

schools and educators to define how to meet the

vision and the outcomes.

post-secondary credit at local institutions of higher

education (or via distance learning), or get on-the-job

training through internships.

Other best practices that emerged in this condition

of curriculum was that a vibrant curriculum needed

to be rich and focus primarily on core academic

subject matter but must be infused with skills as well.

These skills have been called many things from 21st

Century Skills to Deeper Learning Skills to the 4C’s

(critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and

creativity). Whatever one wants to call these skills,

the fact remains that they are not only desirable

for graduates but mandatory for success in our

ever changing world. Additionally, district leaders

all point to the fact that the curriculum needs to be

reviewed on a regular basis; and with that, it should

be redesigned with the help of educators, parents,

students, and the community.

2. Instruction

Instructional practices must be aligned with the district’s vision for teaching and learning. Instruction should be focused on teaching students how to learn, shifting from a teacher-led to student-led model incorporating differentiated instruction (incorporating direct instruction, mastery learning, blended and project-based learning, flipped models, etc.). Finally, instruction should be rigorous and relevant to students’ needs and interests and progression should be based on mastery, avoiding the “mile-wide, inch-deep” phenomenon.

Having effective instructional practices go hand and

glove with having a flexible and learner-centered

curriculum. The first aspect of the condition to call

out is the fact that the district leaders we spoke

with are not wedded to one particular instructional

strategy but a bevy of strategies. As expected, district

leaders focused on infusing instructional strategies

that help to promote more student centered

learning such as project-based learning, problem-

based learning, inquiry-based learning, blended and


and other formative assessments that provide

feedback and data that can be used to adjust

instruction to meet each student’s needs. The

aforementioned students’ needs, in a personalized

learning environment, include both remediation

and acceleration and all points in between. The

generation of real-time data on student performance

is fundamental as is ensuring that data is shared

in a transparent manner with educators, students,

parents, and other key stakeholders (e.g. intervention

specialist, etc.). All student interventions and

supports should be aligned to the assessment data

generated by the comprehensive assessment system.

Changing assessment systems, especially to one with

multiple types of assessments including all mentioned

previously is a challenge. Ensuring connective tissue

between the assessments and instruction takes time

and increased intentionality. For example, Napa

Valley Unified School District (NVUSD) in California

is focused on implementing district-wide, technology

infused teaching and learning with an expressed

focus on 21st century skill acquisition. With that

approach the district focused on bringing coherence

to the system which led them to focus on common

data and a gradebook that blends content and skills.

Aligning formative assessments, clear outcomes,

and a gradebook was a codifying factor and was

used to drive the personalization of education.

Furthermore, as part of its comprehensive change,

NVUSD implemented digital portfolios which, once

again, aligned what they were measuring with what

students need to achieve.

Building on the above, two district leaders brought

up the fact that changing assessment systems is more

challenging in high-performing districts as parents

do not see the need for it. This speaks, once again,

to the need for increased transparency around the

first three conditions: curriculum, instruction, and

comprehensive assessment system.

3. Comprehensive Assessment System

Each district should implement a comprehensive assessment system that is aligned with the district’s vision for teaching and learning. Assessments should include formative, interim, and summative assessments. Instant feedback from ongoing embedded assessments - including, but not limited to portfolios, capstone projects, performance-based assessments, curriculum-embedded assessments - should be used to monitor student progress and adjust day-to-day learning activities. Summative assessments should be offered multiple times a year, when students are ready to take the exam, and students should have multiple opportunities to show mastery of the assessment.

Districts that are leading widespread implementation

of personalized learning ensure that there is

alignment between the conditions. It is essential

that the first three conditions have strong alignment

as curriculum leads to instruction which leads to a

comprehensive assessment system.

Much like instruction, district leaders did not point to

one particular type of assessment over other types

but rather to an interconnected web of assessments.

This comprehensive assessment system should

extend beyond the current overreliance on end-

of-the-year state level summative assessments.

When we convened superintendents from across

the state of Indiana, with our partners at the Center

of Excellence in Leadership of Learning (CELL) at

the University of Indianapolis, there was consensus

among the district leaders that there should not be

so many assessments that educators are unable to

respond to data and adjust instruction. Therein lies

the purpose of student assessment, to guide teaching

and learning and give educators illustrative data that

can be used to personalize instruction.

With that underpinning established, a comprehensive

assessment system should utilize forms of

assessment that include but are not limited to

portfolios, capstone projects, performance-based

assessments, curriculum embedded assessments,


Malleability is a key component of personalized

learning in student centered learning environments.

The ability to move the classroom to accommodate

collaborative time, individual learning time, or even

presentation time is fundamentally important.

Moreover, education research is beginning to

indicate that learning environments contribute

to increases in both student achievement and

engagement as more schools move towards more

flexible and collaborative environments. Redesigning

learning environments can contribute to more

“brain-friendly learning.” A.J. Juliani, an education and

technology innovation specialist states, in a brain-

friendly school, “the space is flexible [and] mobile.

[It’s] a place where students can get up and move

around—where learning processes occur.”6

Additionally, the use of time in those spaces is also of

great importance. Students might need more or less

time on a given task based on their needs or focus

during a given project or unit. Districts have begun

to use a personalized learning disposition as a vision

for building new, different school environments

that account for student voice, collaboration, and

flexibility. In Bartholomew County, Indiana when

the district built Columbus Signature Academy

they took an old auto parts warehouse and built a

school with flexible, glass classrooms to allow for

multi-purpose usage as well as greater transparency.

District leaders incorporated student voice into the

school design to allow for greater personalization of

the learning environment. The latter maps strongly

to general agreement among district leaders that

learning environments should look different to

students, and classrooms should become more

student-centered and student-led.

4. Learning Environments

Districts should cultivate learning environments, both inside and outside the school walls, that support high expectations for all students while fostering a culture of trust, support, equity, and inclusiveness. Continuous improvement should be embedded in the culture of the district and driven by student achievement data and other success indicators. Lastly, real efforts should be made to celebrate district and school successes.

As discussed with the previous three conditions,

the condition of learning environments is where

the conditions of curriculum, instruction, and a

comprehensive assessment system all come together.

Learning environments refer not only to physical

space but also the culture that permeates the school.

In districts that are leading personalized learning, a

greater focus is placed on the student’s experiences

within a system. Mark Morrison, a district leader in

NVUSD in California, discussed creating the right

conditions for teaching and learning that capture

the hearts of both the student and the educator;

and, that culture matters and is essential to reaching

all students. Culture is imperative to advancing

personalized learning. As mentioned above “a culture

of trust, support, equity, and inclusiveness” as well

as an expressed focus on continuous improvement

were common across the interviews with district

leaders. A focus on continuous improvement does

not preclude a concentration on celebrating success

and transition. The culture influences the learning

space as well. Our findings on this condition track

closely with Kay and Greenhill who state the

following, “designing environments in response to the

best understanding of developmentally appropriate

practices for supporting the whole child (e.g. school

time of day, length of instructional blocks, sequence

of learning activities throughout a school year,

physical and emotional safety, full engagement with

school and community, etc.).”5 The aforementioned

passage effectively captures the importance of

putting students at the center of the learning

environment.


implement these supports is through the use of

time in the school day/year. Some district leaders

begin with supports to ensure they are in place

prior to implementing a whole school personalized

learning approach. As an example, Jason Glass,

superintendent in Eagle County, Colorado, is

focused on tailoring learning for all students by

creating multiple pathways through the system.

With that, he is focused on fully implementing a

response to intervention for all students as a pre-

cursor to implementing a competency-based system

throughout the district.

Student supports are tied to one of the themes from

the discussions with district leaders around the need

for transparency at all levels. Transparency, through

the use of formative and embedded assessments,

and through the use of real-time data, undergirds the

entire system of supports for students. Additionally,

the condition of student supports and interventions

is strongly linked to multiple conditions in this paper

including instruction, comprehensive assessment

systems, learning environments, and comprehensive

data systems.

6. Professional Development

Each district should offer a job-embedded professional development program that aligns with the district’s vision for teaching and learning and to student needs. The professional development program should foster a culture of collaboration and continuous improvement while leveraging technology that creates a customized experience for each teacher that is available at any place and time.

It is no secret that the important element of student

success is an excellent educator. Unfortunately,

most pre-service teacher programs fail to prepare

educators for today’s personalized learning

classrooms. For this reason, professional

development (PD) has never been more important.

Any PD program should align to the district’s vision

for teaching and learning, ensuring that educators

are getting the training they need to be successful

in meeting their students’ needs.

5. Student Supports

Students should get the supports they need to be successful when they need them, not after they’ve taken a summative assessment at the end of the year. These supports should be informed by instant feedback based on frequent formative assessments and, to the extent possible, be embedded in learning. Schools should be given the flexibility to use the time in the school day/year as they see fit in order to provide these supports.

Providing targeted student supports to low

performing or struggling students is fundamental

to any successful education system. One of the

tenets of our current system is that those vulnerable

populations will receive the extra supports — time,

task, and teaching — to get them up to grade level.

In a personalized learning system, supports are

not only used to get students back on track or

up to grade level but to also accelerate students.

Student performance can vary subject by subject;

personalized supports allow educators to meet each

student where they are.

This condition is built upon the bedrock that all

students in a personalized learning approach will

have a personalized learning plan. This plan would be

constructed based on real-time feedback, data, and

frequent formative assessments; and not based on

a once-a-year snapshot, summative assessment. Jim

Rickabaugh from Cooperative Educational Service

Agency (CESA) #1 in Wisconsin is actively working

to implement shorter feedback cycles for students

which allows for more effective differentiation of

instruction and deeper personalization. Furthermore,

it is important to note that student supports and

interventions are in play to help all students of all

levels. It also solves for students who are advanced

in some subjects (e.g. English and social studies),

on grade level in another (e.g. science), and in

need of remediation in yet another subject (e.g.

mathematics). In other words, supports are delivered

in a real time, personalized manner. As articulated

in the definitional language of the condition above,

one built-in support as well as an effective way to


processes, partner identification and management,

and alignment of all district activities to the district’s

vision for teaching and learning. Similarly, if the

strategic plan is already in place, emerging leaders

should be tasked with the measurement of goals

against the strategic plan and refresh of the strategic

plan as appropriate. Involving emerging leaders

from all levels of the system in visioning and strategic

planning processes creates a culture of transparency

that makes it much easier to secure the buy-in of

not only the emerging leaders, but also the people

they lead.

One of the most important steps in any leadership

development plan is the identification of individuals

whom districts should invest time and money to

develop. In Kentucky’s Fayette County Schools,

identification happens at the school level, rather

than the district level, in order to ensure that a new

leader is compatible with the school and learning

environments in which they will be working. While

most of the districts interviewed for this paper have

some sort of leadership identification and training

process, they recognize leadership development as a

major challenge. One of the biggest hurdles for many

district leaders is the need for a more formal plan

for identifying and training future school and district

leaders. Many district leaders also commented on

the need for true leadership development processes

that focus on the qualities and traits of successful

leaders as opposed to a program that focuses on the

technical and practical skills required to lead a school

or district. While the technical skills were found to

be important, current district leaders expressed the

need for a more balanced development program to

ensure leaders know how to lead and develop the

educators and students in their charge.

In addition to aligning with the district’s vision, PD

should leverage the power of technology in order to

promote anytime, anywhere learning and a culture

of collaboration amongst educators. Providing PD

offerings online not only allows educators to learn

anywhere, it offers training “just-in-time,” meaning

educators can access the material when they need

it, instead of relying on someone else to provide

it. Further, a just-in-time approach to PD allows

educators to personalize their experience to their

needs which, according to most district leaders

interviewed, is important in any learning experience.

CESA #1, in Wisconsin, has implemented a system

where educators earn badges for PD opportunities

successfully completed, allowing educators to

create professional portfolios of badges that display

what credentials they’ve earned as in-service

educators. Lastly, providing a technological platform

offers educators the opportunity to share lesson

plans, assessments, and best practices and to ask

questions of each other. This provides an invaluable

opportunity for all educators to learn from their most

experienced and effective colleagues.

7. Leadership Development

A district should have a leadership development program that identifies and trains leaders at the classroom, school, and district level. This includes involving educators and other staff members in the visioning process, strategic planning, partnership cultivation, and curriculum review.

An effective leadership development program

ensures that the success districts realize today

can be sustained well into the future. As with the

other District Conditions for Scale, all leadership

development activities should be aligned with the

district’s vision. Unlike some of the other conditions,

a key activity to any leadership development program

includes the creation of that vision by emerging

classroom, school, and district leaders. If a vision is

already in place, emerging leaders should be involved

with tracking the district’s progress towards that

vision. Moreover, future leaders must be involved in

executing on that vision through strategic planning


9. Comprehensive Data Systems

Districts should maintain a comprehensive data system consisting of learning management, assessment, and student information systems. These systems should be able to track student achievement history, teacher comments, supports and interventions, and other indicators while protecting student-level privacy.

The key to personalized learning is the use of data

to construct personalized learning plans based on

the information gathered from assessments and

other learning activities. In order for educators to

be able to do this effectively, educators (and parents

and students) should have continuous access

to a comprehensive data system that includes

learning management, assessment, and student-

level information. Further, any data system should

include information about student-level supports

and interventions, educator feedback, and other

indicators, all while protecting data that could

identify students at all costs.

Much has been made recently about the

importance of comprehensive data systems to the

implementation of personalized learning approaches

and the barriers that exist to accomplishing this.

According to Kate Ash’s 2013 Education Week

article,7 the fragmented nature of data systems in

school districts, a lack of common data standards,

and the lack of professional development to data

users in schools combine to create a large obstacle

to better schools. The Annenberg Institute for

School Reform at Brown University offers several

examples of how increased use of data, made

easier by a comprehensive data system, positively

impacts student learning including educators using

assessment data to pinpoint knowledge and skills

gaps, principals using data to uncover patterns of

performance, and instructional coaches using data

to improve instructional performance.8 Bill Tucker,

formerly of Education Sector, offers five design

principles for data systems.9 They are as follows:

1) learner centered; 2) information flows across

institutions; 3) usefulness and usability to drive

8. Technology Policy

Districts must have a technology policy that allows for ubiquitous, safe access to the internet at all times of the school day. Districts should also address deficiencies in infrastructure in order to support a more connected student population at scale.

A sound technology policy is becoming increasingly

important in today’s connected society. Students

are plugged in twenty-four hours a day, seven

days a week. Asking them to unplug and leave the

technology they’ve grown up with at the school

house door is one of the quickest ways to make

school irrelevant for them. While schools should

offer access to the internet at all times and maintain

an infrastructure to support that access, they must

also ensure that the internet is being used in a safe

way that supports learning.

Many districts identified infrastructure as one of

the biggest barriers to an effective technology

policy. Along with the increased demands of a more

connected student population, districts also have to

deal with the bandwidth and hardware requirements

brought on by more technology-driven assessment

programs. One superintendent interviewed for this

paper during a gathering organized by CELL at the

University of Indianapolis suggested that technology

should be an integral part of any strategy aimed at

improving the education of traditionally underserved

students. She went on to say that this makes

the issues related to infrastructure all the more

important because these students oftentimes do not

have access to the internet or connectable devices

outside of the school day.

In addition to serving a traditionally underserved

population, quality technology can be a great tool for

allowing constituents outside of the school, especially

parents, to understand what is happening inside

the four walls. By giving outsiders a view of what is

happening in schools, they can be more supportive of

their students and the system as a whole.


to the vision. Such activities should include an array

of extended learning opportunities including, but

not limited to, internships, mentorships, and service

learning programs. Due to their involvement in these

activities, partners are more likely to be committed

to students’ success while also blurring the lines

between school and community pushing districts

even closer to the essential element of transparency.

If a district has already committed to a vision, only

partners who demonstrate commitment to that

vision should be chosen to work with the district.

Spirit Lake Community Schools in Iowa are careful

to ensure that all partnerships benefit not only

students but the community partners as well. The

district offers internships, wrap-around services,

and other opportunities to ensure college and career

readiness for students while also aiming to meet

the economic and social needs of the community

through out-of-school learning experiences.

Mutually advantageousness was a theme throughout

discussions with many superintendents who said it

was absolutely essential for sustained, successful

partnerships.

adoption; 4) common, yet open, systems; and 5)

getting the right data.

Because comprehensive data systems are fairly

new in the education space, most superintendents

interviewed for this project did not have a lot to

say about them. Of the superintendents who have

done a substantial amount of work in this area,

one of the biggest challenges they have is finding

a comprehensive system that is able to exchange

information between the learning management,

assessment, and student information components.

Further, several districts are facing a lack of flexibility

allowed by states who mandate the use of state-level

data systems, as the districts’ systems could not

interface with the state system.

10. Partnerships

Each district should cultivate partnerships with business, community, and higher education constituents in their communities (including local and county government, recreation, juvenile justice, faith-based, etc.). These entities should be involved in creating a district vision and strategic plan that is aligned with a broader economic and workforce development plan for the community. All aspects of teaching and learning within the district (curriculum, instruction, assessment, professional development, etc.) should be aligned to this vision. In addition, these partners should assist with creating various learning opportunities (internships, mentor programs, work-based experiences, service learning, etc.) and publish a list of these opportunities for all learners.

Education is the single most important driver of

economic success in the United States. Because of

this, districts must align their vision for teaching

and learning with the economic needs of the

communities they serve. This is best accomplished

by creating partnerships with business, community,

higher education, and government leaders within

a district’s geographic area and leveraging these

partnerships when creating and implementing

the district’s vision. These partners should also be

included when creating learning activities aligned


VisionIncluded in all comments from district leaders, directly or indirectly,

was the idea of an aligned vision. This vision should be shared

between all involved in the education community, from board members

to educators to community partners. Dr. John Quick of Bartholomew

Consolidated Schools in Indiana was adamant about creating board

commitment to a district’s vision, saying, “If you can’t get the board

going in the right direction, nothing else matters.” The vision should

support districts in identifying the best possible leaders while assisting

all members of the education community in understanding their role

in student learning. Dr. Tom Shelton from Fayette County Schools in

Kentucky pointed to the importance of involving district partners in

the creation of a district’s vision, ensuring community support for the

pursuit of the vision. All parts of a district should be aligned to the

vision, including professional development, the selection of curriculum

and instructional practices, and the process of innovation. While it was

assumed that the vision would include student achievement, district

leaders focused on the general idea of having a vision rather than the

specifics of their districts’ visions.

Culture The shared vision of a district clearly informs the system culture that

a district will establish. Sean Smith, Metropolitan School Districts of

Lawrence Township in Indiana, noted creating the desired culture should

be a key aspect of any superintendent’s leadership style. District leaders

focused primarily on culture in terms of the functioning of district leaders,

educators, and staff rather than on students’ experiences. For many

of the district leaders, a key element of culture is expectations around

innovation. Many of the districts were forced to make changes with no

additional, or in some cases decreased, resources and money. As a result,

innovative thinking is an expectation at all levels, including in partnerships,

and especially encouraged at the school level. For instance, culture was

extremely important in implementing the site-based decision making

model Superintendent Steve Dackin implemented in Reynoldsburg, Ohio

as part of the solution to the district’s financial problems. Along with the

Meta Themes

As KnowledgeWorks interviewed district leaders from across the country in an effort to improve and

refine the District Conditions for Scale, several meta themes emerged as the interviewees discussed

their own experiences. These themes are important as, together, they serve as the connective tissues

of the conditions and are the reason that a district must implement each of the ten conditions in order to

successfully scale practices to improve teaching, learning, and student achievement.

Fayette County Public Schools, Kentucky looks to the community and partners to craft and pursue the district’s vision and mission.

The Institute @ CESA #1, Wisconsin resulted from a year-long study to better understand how to shift its understanding of how to use time, money, and resources. Using personalized learning as the foundation, it is focused on moving learners from passive to active roles, and shifting from a compliance-based to a nurturing system.

Spirit Lake Community Schools, Iowa sought out employers and business leaders in the community to understand goals for students. As a result, opportunities in and out of school were created to align instruction with economic needs.

Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation, Indiana looks for empathy, mission, and gestalt in its potential leaders. Leaders do not fear making mistakes, as they understand that learning from mistakes leads to progress.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, North Carolina charts the path and identifies challenges, allowing school leaders to set and implement strategies.

Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning (CELL), University of Indianapolis meeting participants emphasized the superintendent’s role in establishing a strong culture, through


culture of risk-taking is the understanding that mistakes will happen and

are not things to be feared. District leaders emphasized the importance of

continuous improvement and fixing problems immediately.

TransparencyResulting from the notion that members of the education community

must feel safe to make mistakes, transparency was another

overarching theme of interviews with district leaders. Districts need

to be transparent to the board, unions, parents, partners, and the public.

Valerie Truesdale discussed the importance of transparency during the

process of creating Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s new strategic plan and the

fact that every single step involved conscious efforts to share the work

with the community. Reynoldsburg City Schools made the decision not

to hire a public relations professional in order to take away any barriers

between the district and the public. In yet another interview, it was

mentioned that transparency is key to helping parents make the best

choices for their children.

Fayette County Public Schools, Kentucky recognizes that transparency in district policies is essential in creating the best outcomes. The whole community was engaged in the resource allocations process and will be called upon in redistricting and creating a new strategic plan.

Reynoldsburg City Schools, Ohio chose to not hire a public relations professional in order to achieve total transparency. The district is open to the community and is willing to share areas needing improvement as well as the choices available to families.

Piedmont City School District, Alabama demonstrates transparency through continual conversations with teachers and parents, sharing the vision of why the district believes what it does, how it will do what needs to be done, and how the community can help.

interacting frequently with teachers, involving building leadership in district level decision making, and visiting building to have a solid understanding of what is going on.


Conclusion

The District Conditions for Scale were constructed upon the hard won lessons of district level trailblazers

from across the country. These district leaders piloted, assessed, recalibrated, and scaled without an

instruction manual. Often, the district leaders would admit to mistakes or the fact they were “building

the plane while they were flying” leading to “Lego-like” policy making where each brick was assembled without

a fully articulated path to implementation, let alone sustained scale. Many of the leaders we spoke to openly

stated that they would have relished having had a set of conditions to follow, to implement, and to refine. Their

insights and expertise provide a path to scaling personalized learning.

It is our hope that these conditions begin to help districts from across the country to implement a more aligned,

supportive education system that is oriented towards putting the student at the center of the system through

an expressed focus on personalized learning. A systemic focus on personalized teaching and learning demands a

coordinating move from pilot phase to true scale. We feel that the district level is the right level of the education

system to focus on in the United States. As mentioned previously, the district level is closest to the schools and

thus to the students as well as to the educators. Furthermore, the district level has the most control over vision,

curriculum and instruction, as well as formative assessment and student supports. Lastly, by solving for scale at

the district level we gain a clearer vision for what supportive, enabling, and catalytic policy can look like at both

the state and federal level. To truly get to focused, sustained scale we need better alignment between school

and district, district and state policy, and state policy and federal policy.

Next Steps

Despite all the disagreement about education practice and policy in the United States, the one thing

almost everyone can agree on is that an education that is personalized for each student’s needs is key

to college and career readiness for every graduate. These District Conditions for Scale provide a path

to that personalized education for every district, regardless of the strategy implemented to achieve that goal.

There are barriers to implementing these conditions, and that is what KnowledgeWorks will address in the next

steps of this project. Initially, KnowledgeWorks will convene district leaders and state-level policymakers to get

input on a policy framework aligned to the District Conditions for Scale that states can put into place to enable

and incentivize districts to scale personalized learning. KnowledgeWorks will also bring together district

leaders and experts in the field to create a toolkit that can be used by a district interested in implementing these

conditions. This toolkit would provide a step-by-step guide for districts to implement, evaluate, and refine their

school district’s adoption of the District Conditions for Scale. It is KnowledgeWorks’ hope that by creating the

policy environment and tools that allow districts to scale personalized practices, each student will experience

personalized learning that will enable him or her to thrive in college, career, and civic life.


Endnotes

1 Hess, R. M. (2010). The Same Thing Over and Over: How School Reformers get Stuck in Yesterday’s Ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

2 Kay, K. & Greenhill, V. (2013). The Leader’s Guide to 21st Century Education: 7 Steps for Schools and Districts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

3 (J. Quick, personal communication, June 12, 2014)

4 (T. Eawald, personal communication, June 12, 2014)

5 Kay, K. & Greenhill, V. (2013). The Leader’s Guide to 21st Century Education: 7 Steps for Schools and Districts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

6 Devaney, L (September 2014), Transforming learning with physical spaces. eSchool News. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/2014/09/24/transforming-learning-spaces-034/

7 Ash, K. (March 2013). Fragmented Data Systems a Barrier to Better Schools, Experts Say. Education Week. http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?DISPATCHED=true&cid=25983841&item=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edweek.org%2Few%2Farticles%2F2013%2F03%2F14%2F25datadelivery.h32.html

8 Annenburg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. (2005). From Data to Decisions: Lessons from School Districts Using Data Warehousing. Providence, Rhode Island: Mieles, T. & Foley, E. Retrieved from: http://annenberginstitute.org/pdf/DataWarehousing.pdf

9 Tucker, Bill (2010). Five Design Systems for Smarter Data Systems. Education Sector. Retrieved from: http://www.educationsector.org/publications/five-design-principles-smarter-data-systems


Valerie Truesdale, Chief Learning Services Officer Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (North Carolina)

Shawn Smith, Superintendent Metropolitan School District of Lawrence Township (Indiana)

Jim Rickabaugh, Director The Institute @ CESA #1 (Wisconsin)

Jean Garrity, Associate Director The Institute @ CESA #1 (Wisconsin)

Mario Basora, Superintendent Yellow Springs Schools (Ohio)

About KnowledgeWorks:

KnowledgeWorks is a social enterprise focused on ensuring that every student experiences meaningful personalized learning that allows him or her to thrive in college, career and civic life. By offering a portfolio of innovative education approaches and advancing aligned policies, KnowledgeWorks seeks to activate and develop the capacity of communities and educators to build and sustain vibrant learning ecosystems that allow each student to thrive. Our portfolio includes EDWorks and StriveTogether. Learn more at www.knowledgeworks.org.

About the Authors:

Matt Williams is the Vice President of Policy and Advocacy for KnowledgeWorks. Prior to his current role at KnowledgeWorks, Matt served in various capacities focusing on policy, advocacy, special initiatives, and college and career access. He is the former

Director of GEAR UP Waco a comprehensive grant project focused on increasing college access in Waco, Texas. He holds a B.A. in History from the University of Texas at San Antonio and a M.S. Ed. from Baylor University.

Jesse Moyer is the Director of State Advocacy and Research for KnowledgeWorks. Prior to his current role, Jesse served the organization as part of the strategic foresight team, primarily working on the 2020 Forecast: Creating the Future

of Learning. He holds a B.A. in contemporary media and journalism from the University of South Dakota and a M.Ed. from Xavier University.

Sarah Jenkins is the Policy and Research Analyst for KnowledgeWorks. Prior to her current role, Sarah was a Fellow at the Donnell-Kay Foundation in Denver, Colorado where she worked on a variety of state education issues. Sarah is a former early

elementary school teacher and holds a B.A. in French and Arabic Studies from the University of Michigan.

Acknowledgements:

The authors would like to thank the following:

The staff at KnowledgeWorks especially Judy Peppler, Nancy Arnold, Lillian Pace, Katherine Prince, Jason Swanson, and Mary Kenkel for their tireless commitment, assistance, and sage advice.

The work of Theodore Sizer, Ken Kay, and Valerie Greenhill which provided the foundation and the inspiration for this work.

Our partners who provided their unique perspectives, insights and support: Jenny Poon and Steve Bowen from the Council for Chief State School Officers, Carmen Coleman from the National Center for Innovation in Education, David Cook from the Kentucky Department of Education, David Dressler, Janet Boyle, and Todd Hurst from Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning (CELL) at the University of Indianapolis.

Many individuals contributed their time and knowledge to this publication through interviews, among them:

Virgel Hammonds, Superintendent RSU 2 (Maine)

Angela Olsen Spirit Lake Community Schools (Iowa)

Steve Dackin, Former Superintendent Reynoldsburg City Schools (Ohio)

Matthew Akin, Superintendent Piedmont City School District (Alabama)

Jason Glass, Superintendent Eagle County Schools (Colorado)

Tom Shelton, Superintendent Fayette County Public Schools (Kentucky)

Oliver Grenham, Chief Education Officer Adams County School District 50 (Colorado)

Dan Tyree, Superintendent Plymouth Community School Corporation (Indiana)

Elizabeth Celania-Fagen, Superintendent Douglas County School District (Colorado)

Jim Snapp, Superintendent Brownsburg Community School Corporation (Indiana)

John Quick, Superintendent Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation (Indiana)

Matthew Prusiecki, Superintendent Metropolitan School District of Decatur Township (Indiana)

Mark Morrison, Executive Director of Secondary Education Napa Valley Unified School District (California)

Debra Howe, Superintendent Tri-Creek School Corporation (Indiana)

Theresa Gennerman, Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning Kettle Moraine School District (Wisconsin)

Jeff Butts, Superintendent Metropolitan School District of Wayne Township (Indiana)

District Conditions for Scale: A Practical Guide to Scaling Personalized Learning | District Conditions for Scale: A Practical Guide to Scaling Personalized Learning | Page 21

C O N D I T I O N E x P L A N AT I O N

1. Curriculum Curriculum must be aligned to the district’s vision for teaching and

learning and should be reviewed regularly to ensure alignment. The

standards and learning targets contained in the curriculum should be

consistent and easily understood for every student, although the ways

in which students meet those standards may differ in order to provide a

personalized learning experience for each student. These multiple pathways

to meeting standards should be informed by real-time data on student

performance and engagement, students’ learning styles and interests, and

the goals of the student and parents.

2. Instruction Instructional practices must be aligned with the district’s vision for

teaching and learning. Instruction should be focused on teaching students

how to learn, shifting from a teacher-led to student-led model incorporating

differentiated instruction (incorporating direct instruction, mastery

learning, blended and project-based learning, flipped models, etc.). Finally,

instruction should be rigorous and relevant to students’ needs and interests

and progression should be based on mastery, avoiding the “mile-wide, inch-

deep” phenomenon.

3. Comprehensive Each district should implement a comprehensive assessment system

that is aligned with the district’s vision for teaching and learning.

Assessments should include formative, interim, and summative

assessments. Instant feedback from ongoing embedded assessments

- including, but not limited to portfolios, capstone projects, performance-

based assessments, curriculum-embedded assessments - should be used

to monitor student progress and adjust day-to-day learning activities.

Summative assessments should be offered multiple times a year, when

students are ready to take the exam, and students should have multiple

opportunities to show mastery of the assessment.

4. Learning Districts should cultivate learning environments, both inside and outside

of the school walls, that support high expectations for all students while

fostering a culture of trust, support, equity, and inclusiveness. Continuous

improvement should be embedded in the culture of the district and driven

by student achievement data and other success indicators. Lastly, real

efforts should be made to celebrate district and school successes.

5. Student Supports Students should get the supports they need to be successful when they

need them, not after they’ve taken a summative assessment at the end of

the year. These supports should be informed by instant feedback based on

frequent formative assessments and, to the extent possible, be embedded in

learning. Schools should be given the flexibility to use the time in the school

day/year as they see fit in order to provide these supports.

Assessment System

Environments

District Conditions for Scale


Development

Development

Data System

C O N D I T I O N E x P L A N AT I O N

6. Professional Each district should offer a job-embedded professional development

program that aligns with the district’s vision for teaching and learning and

to student needs. The professional development program should foster

a culture of collaboration and continuous improvement while leveraging

technology that creates a customized experience for each teacher that is

available at any place and time.

7. Leadership A district should have a leadership development program that identifies

and trains leaders at the classroom, school, and district level. This includes

involving educators and other staff members in the visioning process,

strategic planning, partnership cultivation, and curriculum review.

8. Technology Policy Districts must have a technology policy that allows for ubiquitous, safe

access to the internet at all times of the school day. Districts should also

address deficiencies in infrastructure in order to support a more connected

student population at scale.

9. Comprehensive Districts should maintain a comprehensive data system consisting of

learning management, assessment, and student information systems.

These systems should be able to track student achievement history,

teacher comments, supports and interventions, and other indicators while

protecting student-level privacy.

10. Partnerships Each district should cultivate partnerships with business, community,

and higher education constituents in their communities (including local and

county government, recreation, juvenile justice, faith-based, etc). These

entities should be involved in creating a district vision and strategic plan

that is aligned with a broader economic and workforce development plan

for the community. All aspects of teaching and learning within the district

(curriculum, instruction, assessment, professional development, etc.) should

be aligned to this vision. In addition, these partners should assist with

creating various learning opportunities (internships, mentor programs,

work-based experiences, service learning, etc.) and publish a list of these

opportunities for all learners.

District Conditions for Scale: A Practical Guide to Scaling Personalized Learning | Page 22

a practical guide to scaling personalized learning

Documents